The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1883. A Source of Danger.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 949, 22 May 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1883. A Source of Danger.

A case that was brought before the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Thursday last seems to us to deserve more than a passing notice. .We refer to the charge preferred against Mr Frederick Pavitt, of this town, for having obtained a quantity of grain on false pretences. As no evidence was taken, consequent on the prosecutor withdrawing the accusation, the public have been left comparatively in the dark as to the facts of the case, and we therefore intend to detail the circumstances, not only in justice to the accused, but because a quite impersonal interest attaches to them. It appears that some time ago Mr Pavitt purchased some wheat from one Thomas, and the latter subsequently came into town and demanded immediate payment for his goods. The purchaser was not able on the instant to comply with this request, but he arranged to give a promissory note from a farmer named Osborne, covering the whole of the debt. Thomas accepted this, but for some ! reason or other he seems to have regretted the action, and before the note had matured he proceeded to lay a criminal information against the man who had bought his grain. The result was that a warrant was issued, and Mr Pavitt was called upon to answer a very serious charge. was this the worst. When the case came before the Magistrate the police asked for an adjournment, under the extraordinary pled that the accused had been in hiding with the intention of evading service of the warrant. We use the terra extraordinary advisedly, as many people in Ashburton are ready to testify that they saw and spoke to Mr Pavitt in the town every day after the information was laid up to the time of the case coming on for hearing. However, the adjournment was granted, but during the week that followed the note had matured, was presented at the bank, and duly honored. This in itself appears to us on the face of it ample proof that there was no dishonesty in the transaction, and, of course, there was nothing else to do but to dismiss the charge. Still the fact remains—and a very ugly fact it is—that an innocent man has had to bear the stigma of a crime of which he was entirely guiltless. During seven days he had to walk about with an undeserved stain upon his character, shunned and scorned by that large section of the community that considers an accusation sufficient proof that some wrong has been committed. Nor do we see upon what possible grounds the action was taken, except out of pure vindictiveness. Thomas held a certain security for the money owing to him, and even if that security had proved worthless, his remedy was to bring a j civil action. We do not wish to throw the slightest doubt on the bona fides of the police in the part they took in the affair. Sergeant Felton acted according to his lights, and he is scarcely to be blamed if he overestimated the value of the evidence put before him, although any lawyer, had he been consulted —which would have been the proper course to pursue—would have told Thomas that there was nothing to support the charge of false pretences. But what we desire to : protest against is the fact disclosed in this case that the police are invested with too great a power, so great, indeed, that the peace and liberty of the most honest merchants are threatened. When we see in this instance of Mr Pavitt that the holder of a bill, should he, with or without reason, choose to question the value of the security he holds, can lay a criminal information against a debtor, the danger of the situation is at once apparent. Nearly every trader in the community has of necessity to accept and give bills, and it is evident from this case that a perfectly innocent man might without the slightest warning find himself in such a position that his reputation would be irreparably ruined. From what Mr Purnell said it seems to be extremely doubtful if the police legally possess the power they exercised on this occasion, and steps should be taken immediately to decide what is the precise status they occupy. Until this is done nobody who has given a bill or a promissory note will feel safe from malicious prosecution, and if the police can act as they did in the charge brought against Mr Pavitt, we say unhesitatingly that the possession of such a power is a source of danger to the trading community.